Royalty the queen and her family.

Well Said trisher

Because an elected head of state's neutrality is prescribed by law, they can be genuinely independent of government, acting as an impartial referee of the political system and an extra check on the power of government.

Aside from these formal functions, a president represents their country on the world stage and takes a leading role at times of national celebration, uncertainty or tragedy. In carrying out these parts of the job, an elected head of state knows they will be held to account for their words and actions, providing a strong incentive to be unifying and inclusive.

If a president attempts to overreach their powers, there's a clear process for removing them from office - unlike a monarch. And a president is paid a straightforward annual salary, usually with a small office and one official residence; the public is not expected to fund their extended family or maintain multiple homes.

A celebrity trisher, ? Ex spice girl, Michael Ball, a quiz show host perhaps ? Do give you choice

Would an elected head of state be outside of politics ? No way

the president of Ireland who Grany has often praised was leader of the Labour Party.

Can anyone name a man/woman not involved in politics who
would stand for the presidency ?

Deedaa Not necessarily an elected Head of State could be outside of politics and perform a purely ceremonial function, as HM is supposed to do now.They wouldn't need to be involved in the process of government at all. She is only supposed to sign things and agree anyway, unfortunately she seems to have stepped outside that remit. You could elect a celebrity. Actually Bojo might be better at that than anything else.

Of course as things stand at the moment if we had to elect a president tomorrow we would end up with Bojo. There's a jolly thought.

Working on a population of 66 million that’s £5.22 each........just a drop in the ocean, or a takeaway coffee, takeaway burger meal, half a pizza or 1/3 of a packet of cigarettes!!

Flowershop True cost of the monarchy.

The monarchy is expensive, very expensive. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were free - the cost to our democracy would still be too high - but when the palace tells you it's "value-for-money", don't believe them. We could get much better for far less.

The huge waste and extravagance of the monarchy is a symptom of the main problem: the palace is totally unaccountable and is able to operate with a far greater degree of secrecy than any other part of the state. It also clearly has considerably lobbying clout within government, which explains why the government hasn't cracked down on royal spending.

“Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £82 million.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.

Oh AmberSpyglass loathsome parasites what a lovely turn of phrase! What would you prefer to replace the Monarchy with?

GG13 of course they have and it is a subject for debate but as my mum always said two wrongs don't make a right. It has been widely publicised about HM's dedication to duty, it seems that dedication is sometimes operated for her own benefit.

trisher there have been numerous threads recently regarding cronyism and how so called rich business people have influenced Government for their own gains.

Many rich people establish charities and trust funds for good causes. However they don't have the ability to alter legislation or influence Parliament. However much the RF give the basic abuse of trust remains.

Exactly Anniebach I and DH were involved with a Nationwide Charity for many years there were several Senior Royals involved. There contributions and involvement were never made public

aonk, I agree that Queen Elizabeth can't be perfect. Some actions are better than others. She has many virtues.

I loved her because I thought she was like ordinary people only richer. Now I see her apparent greed is like that of all arrogant aristocrats everywhere and always. In my view this degrades her as I thought she was better than that.

The Queen and family never disclose what they give to causes.

The Queen has been on the throne for 69 years. It would be a miracle if all her decisions and actions were perfect. After the issues with Trump I can’t believe anyone would want a president.

sf101 yes and it would be even better if she gave it away in public and set a moral example.

I'd really like to believe human nature is so nice.

Flowershop

If I were HMTQ I would take back the £345 million profit that the Crown Estates hands over to the Government then and I'd hand back the £82.4million Sovereign Grant. The Government would be £263 million down but why should I care?

That's fair enough then she could pay for the repairs to Buck House herself. £370 million I believe.

Grany do you call your children - your spawn ? I assume you
do, if you have spawn

Of course Lobbyists lobby MPs (although in 1970 it was a much smaller operation) but MPs are forbidden to gain financially but apparently HM can do so!

If I were HMTQ I would take back the £345 million profit that the Crown Estates hands over to the Government then and I'd hand back the £82.4million Sovereign Grant. The Government would be £263 million down but why should I care?

As our Queen wouldn't it be nice if she put her hand in her pocket to help out her Kingdom in this time of need??
Just a thought.

trisher as of yet I have not read the full article.

Lobbyists lobby MPs and Government on a daily basis for a living. Maybe her advisors were misguided in this instance?

That’s true, trisher. France has a prime minister and a president doesn’t it? Just saying that getting rid of the monarchy as head of state leaves a vacancy, which may not be filled by a better prospect.
I quite like the way the Swedish monarchy is, small and low key.

And are you happy GG13 that a constitutional monarch should interfere in the legislation of a democratic country for her own benefit?

* (up to sixth/eighth in line maybe)